Lars von Trier’s preposterous new film. By BRANNAVAN GNANALINGAM.

I’M NOT A PARENT, but I assume that when a kid starts throwing a tantrum, the worst thing to do is to indulge them. Yet this is what I’m going to do with Lars von Trier, precisely the reaction that he’s after with his latest film Antichrist. I’m not sure if I’ll ever come across a sillier movie, and my only hope is that this deeply un-profound film isn’t retrospectively passed off as some sort of classic by some person who should know better. But the film did teach me some things. A children’s toy entitled “grief” is meant to be symbolic of “grief”. That’s symbolism. And the bit where the child dies at the moment that his mother has an orgasm. That’s being deep. And the bit where the couple go to a place called Eden, and have written on a piece of paper “Satan” “nature” “me”. That’s being subtle. And/or spiritual. Getting audiences to see this film because they are lured on the promise of seeing graphic, non-narrative-advancing imagery. That’s being calculated (i.e. the filmic equivalent of a Nickelback track). I think the Wayans Brothers are going to do a shot for shot remake of Antichrist and call it Scary Movie 5.

The film’s ludicrous opening was closest in tone to Barney Gumble’s Pukahontos. (e.g. the “don’t cry for me, I’m already dead” film festival film in The Simpsons). With deeply portentous music, graphic sex, idiotic cutting, I had no idea this film was going to be a comedy. Then the grieving couple (played by Charlotte Gainsbourg and Willem Dafoe who have managed to gain critical plaudits because they delivered their lines without laughing) go to Eden, a cabin in the woods in a remote forest. Original? Somehow von Trier has managed to take the unsettling ideas out of the classic films, Rosemary’s Baby, The Shining, Don’t Look Now, and Audition and dumbed them down.

I offer the following tips to the first-time wannabe art film director which I have picked up from Antichrist:

a) if you have a symbol, make sure you loudly announce it to an audience. Over and over again in case they missed it the first seven times. If they miss it the eighth time, have a fox announce it to the audience;
b) if you have an important point e.g. men are ‘rational’ and women are ‘irrational’, make sure the audience isn’t left with any sort of ambiguous interpretation and you have the characters re-mention this in dialogue, read it in a handily placed poster on a wall, read it in an insanely scribbled diary, and display it through their actions. Oh and make sure the ending repeats the point, in case the audience missed all those previous metaphors;
c) make sure you compare your film to an unrelated artist (preferably obscure) for inspiration, especially if the other artist (Tarkovsky) makes films which are nothing like yours and are actually good;
d) emulate your hero’s editing style (Carl Dreyer, a fellow Danish director and von Trier’s lifetime hero) but make sure you miss the point about the style you’re trying to copy;
e) throw in sexual penetration and graphic violence because having sexual penetration and violence in a film means audiences will automatically assume that you’re being profound even if you’re saying nothing of any worth. In fact, if you’re saying nothing of any worth, even better to do so (c.f. Gaspar Noé);
f) if you’re trying to make a FEMINIST point (note von Trier’s attempt at subtlety again), make sure you have continual menstruation images because nothing says feminism like bleeding;
g) assume that an outraged audience reaction is simply because they don’t get it, and that you are indeed the self-proclaimed “greatest director in the world”. Make sure people know who made the film too – especially with a garish opening shot that loudly lingers on your name. Especially for those sadly, confused souls who might think other people are involved in your film.

Some readings have read this film as post-feminist. Given that the film’s conclusion is ultimately that all women are evil by their nature, you’d have to assume those agreeing with von Trier’s biological essentialism have an inherent misunderstanding of what “post-feminism” means. *Cough* there’s no such thing as a unified gendered way of thinking *cough*. Whoops, just realised I’m making a feminist point – I should have said menstruation a few times before doing so. von Trier has always been a misogynist, and his best film is Dancer in the Dark because you can tell he’s not getting off on Bjork. Emily Watson, Bryce Dallas Howard, Nicole Kidman, and now Charlotte Gainsbourg on the other hand, deserve (nay need) to be punished in order to make an insightful, despairing conception on the treatment of women. Over and over again.

From this rant people might assume this film made me angry. Not in the slightest. It made me laugh a lot. It also made me laugh that that this ridiculous film is being taken seriously for its supposed insight and bravura. If you like your movies shouting at you, that it’s so deeply insightful and ramming its message down your throat, then by all means this is the “art film” for you. If you’re after a comedy and want to mock people for taking this film seriously, go for it. But I reckon you’ll get more use from your cash investing in dinosaurs instead.

See also:
» A speculative consideration of Lars von Trier and Antichrist